Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy
France burned more wood in 2022 than any point since 1948. Sick.
|
Wood is an interesting one; it's obviously not great for dense populations, but it's a totally reasonable rural option
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/1...carbon-neutral
I'm not sure this analysis accounts for the opportunity cost of losing a ~decade of mature carbon capture, but you can easily catch up by planting more trees. Of course you also have to consider the decomposition benefits to that local ecosystem, but from a pure carbon standpoint it's not a terrible choice...at least at the local level.
The idea does not scale well:
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/no-burn...imate-friendly
Though this article does not consider the natural decomposition side, and I'm not sure how common the example they cite of a company clearcutting exclusively to make wood pellets is...if we accept that some level of clearcutting is inevitable for other purposes, then using the waste matter for pellets/etc probably isn't the worst idea, and you can't necessarily attribute the soil disruption/other impacts to the pellets.
Of course wildfires is another consideration in forestry management...do the local ecosystem benefits outweigh the rapidity of carbon emission without any other useful application of the resource? Probably a bit of a wash considering that natural decomposition alternative. Some clearcutting and burning the brush may not actually be as awful as it seems, though I'm sure there are several other variables to consider.